[Kunzite]

you know it is also possible that there is a mirror less evil 645-d coming...

No, it's not.

Let's not fill unrelated threads with "MILCs should rule the world"-like wishful thinking; this thread is dedicated to a DSLR.
Thank you.

[D0n]

No, it's not.

Let's not fill unrelated threads with "MILCs should rule the world"-like wishful thinking; this thread is dedicated to a DSLR.
Thank you.

and making the jump from kr/k30 to FF debate isn't already off topic, wishful thinking?

[Kunzite]

Indeed, it's off-topic as well - but it's not entirely implausible.

[Anvh]

Indeed, it's off-topic as well - but it's not entirely implausible.

And a mirrorless 645D is?

[Anvh]

you know it is also possible that there is a mirror less evil 645-d coming... and if like the 4/3s system this one does reduce the flange distance, and use adaptors... if the sensor is similar in size tothe 645d and it also does video then a 35mm ff kmount adaptor should be easily do-able, and a 645 and 6x7 lens adaptors should also be doable...
just thinking it's possible... a k-01 on steriods... lol!

Well you can go a bit further.
what about an FF like camera with 645 sensor?
one adapter to fit K mount lenses and another adaptor to fit 645 lenses.

[D0n]

Well you can go a bit further.
what about an FF like camera with 645 sensor?
one adapter to fit K mount lenses and another adaptor to fit 645 lenses.

I like.. but if I was a bean counter at pentax, I'd look at the lower cost of an evf, mirrorless for a large sensor camera...
and my imagination keeps bringing me back to something like this:

with the same sized sensor as the 645-d crossed with something like this:


and it seems more likely to be something Pentax could sell in the sub $3000.00 dollar range... with multiple adaptors for every lens Pentax ever made.... regardless of format.... if you could get 645-d image quality in a compact camera that is suitable for studio or wedding use for three grand would you buy it?

cheaper may be better for everybody but sports shooters...

[eddie1960]

I like.. but if I was a bean counter at pentax, I'd look at the lower cost of an evf, mirrorless for a large sensor camera...
and my imagination keeps bringing me back to something like this:

with the same sized sensor as the 645-d crossed with something like this:


and it seems more likely to be something Pentax could sell in the sub $3000.00 dollar range... with multiple adaptors for every lens Pentax ever made.... regardless of format.... if you could get 645-d image quality in a compact camera that is suitable for studio or wedding use for three grand would you buy it?

cheaper may be better for everybody but sports shooters...

Sub 3000 with that sensor will not be possible. the sensor alone used to cost $3000 even at life end I would guess it's still a couple of grand minimum
and it's CCD so not Live view functional.
You need a sensor that doesn't exist yet a Medium format CMOS

Edit - I like toe GA645 too

[D0n]

Sub 3000 with that sensor will not be possible. the sensor alone used to cost $3000 even at life end I would guess it's still a couple of grand minimum
and it's CCD so not Live view functional.
You need a sensor that doesn't exist yet a Medium format CMOS

Edit - I like toe GA645 too

I said same sized sensor... might surprise you to know the 645-d sensor at 33 x 44mm ain't really THAT much bigger than a ff 24x36 frame... so a cmos sensor that sized or a ccd sensor (there have been plenty of video ccd's in the past)... is feasible...

[Anvh]

and it seems more likely to be something Pentax could sell in the sub $3000.00 dollar range

Doubt it, the sensor cost a lot, just look at digital 645 camera backs that would be the price to aim for.

[D0n]

some of the same arguments were made about Pentax's mirrorless options a while back... but then look what happened... the k-01...
sure I think a FF is possible... but d-slr vs evf vs something completely different and possibly evil?... Pentax is not the most predictable company lately.... and I enjoy guessing.

[eddie1960]

. might surprise you to know the 645-d sensor at 33 x 44mm ain't really THAT much bigger than a ff 24x36 frame... .

you are aware that it is 68% more area than a ff sensor ....that is a pretty big difference if you ask me, about the same as the difference for m4/3 to apsc though not as great as the apsc-FF jump

Edit to visualize it better perhaps look at an 864 square foot apartment versus a 1450 square foot apartment. it's a pretty dramatic difference but the same 68%

[ramseybuckeye]

I said same sized sensor... might surprise you to know the 645-d sensor at 33 x 44mm ain't really THAT much bigger than a ff 24x36 frame... so a cmos sensor that sized or a ccd sensor (there have been plenty of video ccd's in the past)... is feasible...

It actually is quite larger, 588 sq mm larger.

[eddie1960]

It actually is quite larger, 588 sq mm larger.

exactly or to use my apartment analogy a jr 1 bedroom versus a 2 bedroom with den

[D0n]

you are aware that it is 68% more area than a ff sensor ....that is a pretty big difference if you ask me, about the same as the difference for m4/3 to apsc though not as great as the apsc-FF jump

Edit to visualize it better perhaps look at an 864 square foot apartment versus a 1450 square foot apartment. it's a pretty dramatic difference but the same 68%

percentages and buildings? what we're comparing is more close in size to comparing different sized coins in your pocket... they're really is not that big a difference.. but the question is... is there a sensor out there to replace the kodak sensor in the 645-d? and is it gonna be video capable?
leica's s system? close to right size, but no video I suppose? Samsung's medium format sensor? they have a prototype... 36 x 36 squared. Kodak's demise could very well push Pentax back into bed with samsung.... why not?

[monochrome]

really is not that big a difference

On a 300mm wafer, the large sensors have a much higher spoilage rate than the smaller ones (meaning at least SOME small sensors are good from one wafer). At 68% more surface area the 645D sensor is actually quite difficult to produce and the small volume of finished sensors forces the development cost over a tiny number of finished product sales.

$3000 / sensor is pretty cheap in this manufacturing environment.